cancer masons: a cult of death

[Guest guest]

on 100777.com (http://100777.com/)

Cancer Masons: A Cult of Death By cybe

Created 20/02/2005 - 16:27

Cancer Masons: A Cult of Death Tom Valentine †" TomValentine. com

There is an absolute monopoly when it comes to the approved treatments

for cancer in the United States, and also in much of the world. This

monopoly has prevented better, more effective, more scientific and far

more humane treatments from being accepted by the cancer establishment.

The truth is, millions have suffered at the hands of their orthodox

physicians needlessly. Why? I say the devil made them do it. You are

laughing, but hear me out. I say the cancer industry is absolute evil.

The reason I chose modern cancer research history to illustrate evil is

because the examples are so very clear. To deliberately add to the

misery of sick people, as the institutions have done during the past

century, requires human operatives with a sense of evil beyond the mere

self-serving desires lurking within us all.

I say this historic example requires a general aura of evil of a satanic

nature that has continued down through time in an institutional form.

This history of cancer research illustrates organized institutional evil

that can only be a carry-over from the earliest times in man's history

when these institutions were under the direct, unchecked influence and

direction of Satan himself. I refer to this institutional evil as simply

" Masonic. "

I believe those who fancy themselves philosopher kings or adepts of

Masonry tap into traditions of defying God that go all the way back to

Nimrod, builder of the Tower of Babel. This is a cabal carrying on a

tradition best described as a cult of death. The history of masonry, or

organized evil is another subject dealt with elsewhere in this series.

Cancer is a hideous, insidious, invasive, and corrosive way to have

one's body devoured from the inside out. As this is written in February

of 2005, cancer is becoming the number one killer disease of modern

America†" replacing in statistical ranking heart and artery

disease. Both forms of disease, by the way, have the same inherently

evil dogmatic monopolistic history. The death and destruction from

cancer has progressed in evil harmony with the amount of money society

has managed to spend in making war against it. Cancer research and

medicine is proof positive of the adage that if you toss more money and

bureaucracy at a problem, you will absolutely get more of the problem.

In my high school years (1949-53) " everybody knew " that cancer was an

incurable disease. This was a lie put forth by the cancer institutions

that had already become a financial behemoth based upon emotional

propaganda such as " fight cancer with a check-up and a check. " This

gimmick caused a vicious cycle. Getting a check-up by a physician found

more cancer among the people, which enlarged cancer statistics, which

were used to scare more people into getting checked up. It has never

improved the cure rate, but it increased misery by having more people

medicated, burned and cut in futility than ever before.

However, by the time I entered high school at the middle of the 20th

century there had already been several proved modalities for keeping

cancer in check, without writing a blank check. There have been many

" alternative therapies " for treating cancer more humanely and sensibly

than the cut, burn and poison techniques so dominant in the industry

today. Note the word " industry " it will return. But I concentrate on two

cases because they illustrate the point most effectively and clearly.

In the final decade of the 1800s a Scottish embryologist discovered the

basis of what we now call " stem cells " and just before the turn of the

century he had elucidated how cancer, in the form of trophoblast cells,

which are involved in every pregnancy, served a useful purpose as the

chorion envelope surrounding the early fetus. If the invasive cells of

the chorion envelope are not wiped out after the 56th day of pregnancy,

both the mother and new fetus will die of a horrible form of

cancer†" chorionepithelioma.

Beard learned through animal experiments that the key timing device in

switching off this invasive, parasitic envelope, which gives every new

embryo its start, was the development of a pancreas gland in the fetus.

Nature's solution to this deadly cancer that gives life in the earliest

stages, is a digestive enzyme produced by the pancreas†" trypsin.

To make a long story about years of research and development short, Dr.

John Beard, professor at Edinburgh University determined prior to the

dawn of the 20th century that this enzyme was capable of devouring and

removing cancer cells and tumors. Beard first published his findings in

1902 in the prestigious journal <Lancet<.

Beard was a careful and exacting scientist. Flush with his discoveries

about enzymes, which were known to biological scientists at that time

but were not attracting any attention outside of digestion, Beard

injected extract of trypsin in mice with Jenson's sarcoma, and the

tumors regressed. This was an extraordinary achievement and should have

changed the direction of cancer research and medicine at the time.

In fact, other physicians and researchers adopted Beard's magnificent

enzyme discovery, and for the next 20 years they published in the top

journals, Lancet and British Medical Journal, how successful the enzyme

treatments had been on human patients.

Godfearing men with good intentions would have joyously set out to

verify and utilize this non-toxic, non-invasive treatment for a dread

disease. However, the powerful men of the " Crown " running the

institutions of Europe and America refused to abandon dogma and

viciously attacked Beard and all who spoke well of his work.

Beard fought back valiantly, publishing a monograph in 1911 titled The

Enzyme Treatment of Cancer, which presented his case impressively. It is

said that the " truth will out. " And, surely it did in this

case†" but the establishment monopoly obviously did not want the

truth. John Beard died in 1924 a bitter and lonely genius.

Evidently the devil loves cruel irony, because the year after Beard

published his monograph (1912) the world suddenly learned about Marie

Curie and her discovery of the rays emitted by radium. The

establishment, directed by those who control the credit required for the

financial development of new ideas, leaped aboard the radiation train.

Whereas the media of the day had only ridiculed Beard's work, it

heralded Madame Curie and radiation. It didn't take long for burning

tumors with irradiation to join surgery and dangerous drugs as a

popular, but hardly successful, therapy for cancer. The wonderful non-

toxic use of trypsin and other enzymes dropped down Orwell's memory

hole. The deliberateness of the suppression is what makes this evil. The

powers of the dogmatic establishment displayed an evil arrogance by

unfairly and dishonestly destroying Beard's enzyme treatment. This same

evil arrogance has destroyed many viable cancer alternatives over the

past two centuries.

Now we must pause to analyze a significant change in the history of

cancer research and therapy. Surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, the

cut, poison and burn methods for " attacking " cancer rather than treating

it, were officially and firmly established by the time John Beard died

in 1924. In the United States the medical monopoly of the union

doctors†" American Medical Association†" had been established

with state licensing procedures and medical training schools utterly in

their power.

At about the same time the Federal Food and Drug Agency (FDA) was formed

and transformed. It was formed as a reasonable idea for protecting

consumers, but it was quickly transformed into a monopoly protection

agency. One can read all about it in the book written by the first FDA

director, Harvey Wiley MD. The book is titled: The History of a Crime;

How Could it Happen.

Without exception in my reading of the history of mankind, whenever a

good idea becomes institutionalized the good idea takes a back seat and

the maintenance and promotion of the institution becomes the reason for

existence. Institutionalized " health care " is a classic example of a

burial ground for good ideas. In fact by calling it " health care " we are

partaking of the Orwellian concept of newspeak. Institutionalized

medicine is all about reaping benefit from sickness costs and virtually

nothing about true health.

The first rule of institutionalization is to become dogmatic and protect

your turf at all costs. Few institutions demonstrate this better than

the modern medical cabal involving medicine, pharmacy, insurance and

government. What this monopoly has truly done, regardless of those cases

where genuine cures occurred, is kill more people in more miserable ways

(dying of cancer is a horror) than any other do-good institution yet

created.

Why would anyone be devoted to the darkness of evil in a Creation that

begins with light? To me, the only answer that withstands all the

challenges of reason, logic, time, human psychology and history is the

story of the fall of man presented in Scripture.

Many people believe the devil does not exist. Many may believe mention

of Satan and Lucifer in the Bible is mere metaphor describing the evil

side of man's nature. I disagree, but I can't prove anything; I can only

suggest. Personally, I have no doubts about Satan/Lucifer being a real

entity rather than a metaphor.

The angel of light became the messenger of darkness, and I also believe

that the influence of this powerful entity on man's behavior was without

checks and balances until the advent of Christ. After Christ established

His kingdom (a spiritual realm for those who heard and obeyed) following

the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the devil was limited in his ability to

directly influence human behavior. Prior to the advent of Christ, Satan

could actively participate with man, and form organizations to

promulgate his opposition to God. I believe these organizations still

exist and still do the devil's work based upon traditions established.

Christ spoke firmly against the traditions of men making the word of God

of non-effect. Thus, the title of this paper: Cancer Masons.

Doing evil in the name of good is the essence of diabolical, a word

meaning " of the devil. " I heard a pulpit-pounding preacher of the old

school give his version of the devil. It is the best explanation of why

everything coming out of man's institutions can become exactly the

opposite of what is good for humanity. In a nutshell, here's that

sermon:

According to Scripture it is clear that the devil wants to be God. It is

also clear that he is not God and cannot be God, so how in the hell is

he going to fool people into thinking he is God? He uses the mirror

trick. When we look into a mirror we see ourselves, exactly as we are,

down to the pimples and warts. And yet, what we see is exactly the

opposite of reality. Our left eye is our right eye; left ear, right ear

and so forth. Our reflection comes back to us on the opposite side of

reality.

Satan " mirrors " God. Where God uplifts and creates, Satan tears down and

destroys. This is why so many things are exactly the opposite of what

should be. Cancer research should seek cures and comfort for people in

desperate condition, but the institution filters out sane, workable

discoveries for no logical reason†" as happened with Beard's use of

enzymes†" and conversely promotes insane, destructive procedures of

the cut, burn and poison variety knowing full well they do not work. The

directors of this monopoly cannot pretend ignorance of the viable

alternatives they have deliberately quashed in their support of dogma.

And, if they did not act in ignorance, the only explanation for their

actions is†" evil.

Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez of New York has been carrying the banner for Dr.

Beard's enzyme therapy in recent years and has written fine articles

about Beard's magnificent work a century ago. In a recent article, Dr.

Gonzales wrote about the establishment's destruction of Beard's work as

follows:

" I have often pondered the vitriolic†" and

irrational†" response of so many eminent researchers and scientists

to Beard's well-documented approach, reactions that nearly buried the

treatment for keeps. He was trained impeccably as a scientist and

behaved throughout his life as a true researcher, carefully documenting

his laboratory and clinical results in the mainstream medical

literature. But, it made no difference at all.

" The rejection of enzyme therapy 100 years ago had really nothing to do

with science but everything to do with politics, psychology and

popularity… "

Dr. Gonzalez goes on to rationalize the evil that occurred, and I repeat

it here. Note, however, that the writer does not necessarily believe nor

see the institutional evil, which is the subject of this paper. His

rationale is perhaps " acceptable " to many modern Americans. It is

unacceptable to me.

" …Beard was a nerdy ivory tower scientist, who had little patience

for his critics whom he saw as unacceptably ignorant. He didn't court

the press, didn't care about fame, and didn't seem at all interested in

international acclaim. His refusal to play the political game properly,

his refusal to court his colleagues and media of the day, I believe

worked against him. I also think that his approach was just too simple,

perhaps not mysterious enough to enchant his fellow researchers. "

That simply doesn't wash. Obviously the callers of the shots at the

Royal Society and among the institutions of the Crown in England, Europe

and the US were not eagerly seeking a simple, clean, elegant solution to

cancer, or else they would have leaped into the fray to prove the

benefits they were hearing about. It is true that playing the proper

politics has a role within institutionalized thinking and doing, but we

read how many other researchers verified Dr. Beard's therapy†" were

all of them reclusive nerds?

One also wonders where the eager and active journalists were. Surely

they, like me, would have been excited to hear about such an elegant

therapy. I'm betting some writers did want to ballyhoo the story in

spite of Beard's alleged recalcitrance but they ran into an editor's

spike. Nothing is new under the sun, what happened to me surely happened

to others.

As a reporter for a major newspaper, I personally wanted to tell the

stories of viable cancer treatment alternatives, but powerful editors

killed the idea and steered me away. The one exception took place in

1966 at the small Santa Maria Times in California where I told the story

of John Beard's enzymes and other alternatives in a series on the front

pages four days running.

That series, incidentally, caused the American Cancer Society to sponsor

a meeting for doctors in that town, and they called the Times publisher

on the carpet for allowing the series. The criticism of the series

amounted to nothing of substance, because Beard's work is substantial.

The artfully arrogant criticism was†" " Tom Valentine is a sports

writer who thinks he's a doctor. "

Wasn't that scientific?

The story of John Beard might not make a case for institutional evil all

by itself, but there are many such stories†" the literature is rich

in concrete examples. I will comment only on one more, but there are

many books written about how the cancer establishment has unfairly and

unscientifically destroyed alternatives that may have profoundly

affected their monopoly. " The Cancer Industry, " by Dr. Ralph Moss is a

good example. " The Burzynski Breakthrough " by Thomas Elias is a recent

tale of the same old institutionalized evil.

At one time I thought seriously about writing a biography of Dr. William

F. Koch, a scientist and physician without peer in the cancer research

world of 1919 through the 1950s.

Dr. Koch died in exile because the cancer establishment drove him from

is native United States. A detailed account of his cancer work is found

in a 1968 book, Cancer Cures Crucified, written by Suzanne Caum. She had

been a terminal cancer patient who became one of Koch's many successful

cancer cures. It was self-published because no publisher dared touch it.

You may find many references to Dr. Koch's remarkable work on the

Internet.

Dr. Koch's ability as a biochemist thrust his thinking decades ahead of

his time and the seemingly simple cellular oxidation metabolism therapy,

called glyoxylide, he invented was, perhaps, too biochemically advanced

for the establishment cranks to understand†" yet the facts indicate

some of them knew full well he was onto something remarkable. Morris

Fishbein, the infamous director of the AMA for decades, knew the value

of Koch's discovery†" he tried to tie it up, but failed and turned

viciously against Koch. The destruction of Koch's reputation and the

ruination of his life in America were far too vitriolic and intentional

to be mere objection to alleged quackery. Methinks the establishment

complained too much.

When the institutionalized evil destroyed Dr. Koch, they set molecular

biology back by at least half a century. Koch was that far ahead of his

peers in understanding free radical, oxidation-reduction molecular

biochemistry.

In The Cancer Industry, Dr. Moss illustrates how the establishment has

managed to destroy innovation over and over again without adequately or

fairly investigating it or testing it. The American Cancer Society's

list of " unorthodox treatments " has an impressive lineup of ingenious

researchers†" who were never eagerly nor hopefully investigated.

Ironically, Moss tells of one member of the cancer establishment who

admitted to him that new ideas for research in our time springs from the

denigrated " quacks " of the past.

Dr. Moss lists 63 " unproven methods of cancer treatment " and shows the

amount of research the establishment used to allege that they were

unacceptable to the monopoly. Many ingenious physicians and researchers

were tossed unceremoniously and viciously onto the quack heap just to

keep the monopoly safe.

In 1972, President Richard Nixon focused the vast power of the United

States government against cancer by declaring " war " on it. More than

three decades later and with more than $30 billion taxpayer dollars

spent, after adjusting for longer life span, the incidence of cancer

continues to go up. The cancer incidence, for example, rose about 44%

between 1950 and 1989. The AMA Journal (pretending to be on the side of

truth, honesty, health and public service) published an article in

2004 titled: " Are Increasing Five-Year Survival Rates Evidence of

Success Against Cancer? " The answer was a resounding " no. "

Cancer has been with mankind from the beginning. The cancer institutions

have only been with us less than two centuries. I say it is a death cult

operation. That is the only explanation that truly makes sense. I agree

that individuals can be quite evil, destructive and vindictive, but the

unreasonably suppressive history of the cancer institutions illustrates

that a force like the " hidden hand " of Adam Smith's capitalism manages

to arrange individual shortcomings to work together in a concert of

evil. There is a powerful cabal controlling all the world's finances,

whose members are devoted to the wretched philosophies one can find

under the umbrella of masonry. I say they use their power and influence

to maintain this destructive monopoly of medicine that kills in the name

of healing and public service†" the mirror image!

www. tomvalentine. com/html/cancer_masons. html

Also see: Royal Raymond Rife and the Suppressed Cure for Cancer? www.

rense. com/health/rife. htm

Last updated 19/02/2005

 

 

 

Source URL:

http://100777.com/node/1187

[Guest guest]

Fascinating article. Liked that about the pancreas, trypsin